NOM ignores allegations of stealing Reuters photo

More than one week after initial reporting by the LGBT-news blog Good As You, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) finally addressed its usage of uncredited, altered photos on a campaign website designed to promote repealing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

In a blogpost titled "The Great Photo 'Controversy,'" NOM President Brian Brown addressed the Flickr photo used, but not the photo originally credited to Reuters photographer Jim Young. Brown's defense for using the public domain photo of a rally for Barack Obama in Ohio in 2008 rather than a photo related to repealing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire in 2012 was that it "symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort."

A spokesperson from Reuters told The American Independent that Reuters is currently looking into the matter and investigating whether NOM actually purchased the photo or was otherwise given permission to use it. NOM has not responded to TAI's .requests for comment.

Not only did Brown not address the Reuters photo, but he did not identify the source of the news story, which was Good As You. Instead, he credited the discovery of the altered photos to "Rachel Maddow and her friends on the left." (Good As You's Jeremy Hooper said NOM has been instructed never to respond to him or Good As You).

An excerpt from Brown's blogpost:

Neither Maddow nor her friends at the Human Rights Campaign can defend imposing same-sex marriage on New Hampshire with no vote of the people. So they issue "reports" and press releases criticizing NOM over a photo collage! They object to us using a photo of a crowd scene, which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort. They're upset that the photo was not taken at a NOM rally. Seriously?! NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriage—the most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters—and nobody is supposed to object? It's as if the institution of marriage gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!